Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
If Google wanted to crack down on adblockers without risking an antitrust lawsuit in the EU, they might look to introduce features that undermine adblockers as a plausibly unintended side effect of some other valid goal, like security. That's what this looks like. Without access to internal communications no one can prove that Google intended the effect on adblockers, but it's certainly convenient for them, while plausibly deniable.
There are malicious extensions found in the chrome web store pretty frequently, and if I was making one, I would definitely use the API that lets me man-in-the-middle all network requests. So google’s statement that 40% or whatever of malicious extensions use that API seems plausible to me.
You could definitely make the argument that Google should just do a better job of reviewing extensions, but that alone also wouldn’t be a 100% solution. Google definitely messed up with the original rule limits, though. If chrome is more optimized then surely it must be able to handle just as many (if not more) rules than uBO.
I doubt they have "messed it up". Just as intended.
Exactly.